Fire CNN's John Roberts

Why? Because he is a Democrat operative. He is not an objective journalist.
I fully expect the Liberal Left to attempt to discredit and smear Vice-President choice Governor Sarah Palin. But news organizations are supposed to be objective.

Yeah, I know. Of course they are not. But when you can't even get straight news from an on-screen anchor then that news organization is not about news at all. It is about shaping opinion and steering voters towards candidates that they support and away from ones they want to destroy.

There is of course a long list of such "journalists" but the short list has names like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews near the top of it. Matthews wants to be in politics so badly that he behaves on air as a Liberal wanna-be Pennsylvania Senator.

And Olbermann is honestly suffering some mental disorder.

John Roberts of CNN jumped out early against Governor Palin. Showing his incredibly heart-felt support for Special Needs children he spewed this on August 29:
"Children with Down's (sic) syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"
Really? Where did Roberts' new-found concern for working women come from? If Palin were a Liberal Democrat he would be praising her "courage" and "resolve" in the face of such family difficulties.

Also on the same day he said: "Now, she is a manager. She is the governor of a state. She does have limited experience, though. She's also been the mayor for a city in Alaska. And for a time she was the ethics chairman of the Alaska oil and gas conservation commission. But that does not add up to broad experience, particularly the type of broad experience you think should launch you to the national level."

Right. I'll leave it to you to judge how he would have framed a Liberal Democrat's similar experience. Never mind that Barack Obama has less executive experience than the Governor. No, Roberts will not go there.

And his latest "oops" moment was a Freudian slip of epic proportions-- though you will never hear about it except from Newsbusters.org and now on Youtube.

Here is what Roberts says in that video. (Emphasis mine):

"You know, this almost looks like what happened in 2004 where the Bush campaign was very, very good at defining John Kerry in their own terms, and he was on the defensive, and he was always trying to fight back against them. Do we risk, or does the Democratic Party here risk Barack Obama becoming John Kerry II?"

Hey Roberts, your bias is nauseating. You should just come out of the news closet and embrace your inner Liberal. You'll feel better.

And America will be better off knowing who you support politically. So drop the pretense of objective journalism... mmmkay?

You have made changes in the past for the better. That's right.. I remember your Trojan helmet mullet.

Hey, Team Obama: Learn to use 'the Google'.

So the Obama campaign has yet again walked into a propeller, shot itself in the foot, screwed the pooch or whatever your favorite cliche is for idiocy, by producing this Unbelievable Web Ad

If you'd rather not view it, the ad smears McCain by claiming he is so old and out of touch that he doesn't know how to use a computer and can't even send an e-mail.

A cursory search on McCain would reveal that he is quite computer savvy. As FORBES MAGAZINE revealed eight years ago in 2000:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

Maybe the Obama team is on to something here. Look for more ads like these...McCain can't even comb his own hair, McCain can't throw a baseball, McCain can't tie his shoes, return a salute or place his hands behind his back.

Yeah, being tortured almost daily for five and a half years has a tendency to cause things like dislocated shoulders, broken arms, broken teeth caused by the butt of an AK-47.. those kinds of things that the Obama campaign seems to take little notice of.

McCain was tapping Morse code through prison walls to fellow POWs and being beaten for it if caught, while Barack Hussein Obama was smoking weed and trying to score some blow.

Another morsel of wisdom for you Barack: Presidents can't e-mail anyway. Any and every piece of e-mail is subject to subpoena. Clinton sent TWO e-mails in his entire term.

So who is more out of touch with the people? John McCain or the campaign that has offended The Women Vote, The NRA Vote, The parents of children with Special Needs vote, The Democrat Catholic vote, the Veteran Vote and now the Old Vote.

I dare say that man-child Obama could not even open the canopy on McCain's A-4 Skyhawk without googling his Blackberry.

Feinstein's Folly.

Washington DC has had a ban against owning handguns or keeping one in your house since 1976. But registered rifles and shotguns were permitted to be owned and kept inside the home, unloaded and dis-assembled or trigger locked. So if you were a victim of a burglary or worse, you had no handgun to grab. Instead you must turn the light on, grab your reading glasses, find your key to your trigger-lock, get your disassembled shotgun put together, find the shells, load the weapon and hope you haven't already been assaulted---Assaulted by someone who DOES have a handgun. Of course it is an illegal one in DC but hey, maybe he just didn't know that handguns were illegal in the nation's capitol.

By the way, trigger locks don't work and I'll tell you why. Gun safety's first empirical rule is that you NEVER touch the trigger of any firearm until you are ready to fire it. Every trigger lock manufacturer tells you; DO NOT attempt to install a trigger lock on a loaded weapon because the weapon could discharge while installing it. And if the gun has a light trigger pull, it could possibly still be fired after the lock is in place.

So if you must only install a trigger lock on an unloaded weapon.. (wait for it...) why do you need a trigger lock at all? It is a feel-good measure designed to do nothing more than instill a false sense of security. An "innocent" kid who finds a gun, finds the ammo for it, deliberately loads it, racks a round into the chamber, flips the safety off and shoots a friend BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRIGGER LOCK ain't an innocent kid. Better to gunproof the kid and educate him than rely on a cheap piece of plastic that could cause someone to be maimed or killed.

So the bad guy who invades a good guy's house in DC knows there are no accessible guns there..otherwise the homeowner is a criminal too. That's right, since 1976 anyone who lived in DC and had a handgun in the house was a criminal.

Today the Supreme Court held that DC's handgun ban was unconstitutional--by a slim 5-4 decision. Imagine the high court barely agreeing to restore the right that everyone in DC already had under the Constitution of the United States: The rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

The decision scares me more than it elates me because with just one more Liberal justice, 2nd Amendment rights could have been trashed.

And then Senator Diane Feinstein proclaimed thusly:
"And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

So, lemme get this straight Senator Feinstein..
DC has been the murder capitol of the world many times over since this handgun ban became law in 1976.
And you Senator, think that law abiding citizens of DC and the rest of the country will be less safe WITH a means to protect themselves from murderers.
Less safe WITH the legal and GOD GIVEN right to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Is that your final answer? Wanna stick with that one?

Feinstein you magnificent idiot.

Here's a news flash Senator: It is murderous intent that kills people REGARDLESS of the method. Disregard for human life in a violent society is what kills people.

I'm blue in the face from saying this but..
A firearm lying on a table will continue to lie on that table until the end of time unless and until a human being decides to pick it up and decides to use it as a weapon.

Otherwise it is simply an inanimate piece of steel.

Remember Senator, 99+% of the 200,000,000 guns in America have never had, and never will have, any connection whatsoever to accidents, crime or evil.

200 MILLION!

As the saying goes, your friend Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns have.

No Instant Replay in Baseball!

As you know, MLB has been considering implementing instant replay in baseball games for disputed home run calls. They had intended to begin the experiment after the regular season, during winter ball in the Grapefruit League.

You know, to work out the bugs and such.

Now MLB is considering starting this fresh hell in the 2008 season.
In August.


When every team is getting playoff fever.

When every pitch is critical.

Am I the last person who still thinks this is a bad idea?

And it's not that I am against every change in baseball; I think inter-league play is a good thing. And I do like the idea of the Wild Card in the playoffs. And awarding World Series home field advantage to the winning league in the All-Star game is novel and has made the game much more important. (Though I was always a fan of the All-Star games for the non-seriousness of it and the enjoyment of watching players compete in a whole new way).

People who already don't like baseball say that the game is "boring" and "moves too slowly".
Instant Replay will make the game even slower.

And where does Replay stop?
What's next..reviewing plays at the plate? Sure, why not? Replays at first base on disputed calls of out or safe? Why not? Balls and Strikes? Why not? Once Replay is implemented it will NEVER GO AWAY... kinda like taxes and toll booths.

Listen up Bud Selig!!! I have a radical but low tech solution for this.
I know it sounds crazy but... here goes:

Hire two more umpires per game.

One each down the foul lines at the walls.

And their only job is to make the call on home run balls. The current configuration puts the first base and third base umps at a huge disadvantage trying to make calls on hits that they can't even see well.

Please Bud. I know Baseball can afford to hire two more sets of eyes per game.

Before you go dickin' around with the world's greatest sport, before you start trying to improve a game that is already nearly perfection, please consider using more of the very thing that makes Baseball great:

Humans.